RL Peeves
-
@Wizz pretty wild to be telling someone they are wrong about their personal experiences, lol
-
Woops, I forgot we can’t talk objectively about weed without people getting defensive, lol.
I don’t know what else to say here, what people self-report and what the actual studies and trials have stated so far are unfortunately pretty different. Look into it for yourself if you don’t believe me?
-
Unfortunately the evidence we do have says one thing, and many reported anecdotes say another. But the evidence we have is scanty and of small scale.
Until we have solid evidence over a long period of time (and decently varied demographics), I’d err on the side of caution when correcting people about their experience.
So far the only suggestion being made by the science is that medical professionals shouldn’t just throw marijuana and other cannabinoids out as viable alternatives to tested medical practice for these specific conditions.
He/Him. Opinions and views are solely my own unless specifically stated otherwise.
BE AN ADULT -
@Wizz bring back downvotes
fr fr
(she/her) -
Bodies and brains and all their attendant and incumbent responses to a gamut of things --diet, activity level, stimulus, “good” drugs, “bad” drugs-- are incomprehensibly unique from person to person. The power of the internet gives anyone who can google the (unwarranted) confidence of a medical researcher or licensed practitioner. Listen to your body and be candid with your doctor, and don’t tell other people how their shit works. You can tell them how your shit works. But don’t tell them how THEIR shit works.
I wish you would.
-
-
are incomprehensibly unique from person to person.
Very true. And good, solid research generally focuses on broad general applications, not exceptionally specific ones.
So don’t fall into the trap of reading “X does Y for Z groups” and instantly assuming that this immediately applies because you are part of Z group.
Neurobiology and neurochemistry are fuckin’ tricksy, to say the least, and what works ‘generally speaking’ might not work for you - with the inverse also being true.
There’s a reason so many medications have things they “officially” work for, and things for which they can also be prescribed for off-book.
Shit’s fucky, we’re not experts, and this ain’t the place to give medical advice even if you are an expert.
-
How is “this works for me” medical advice? Y’all on the wrong side of this it’s okay to get off the train.
-
@shit-piss-love said in RL Peeves:
How is “this works for me” medical advice? Y’all on the wrong side of this it’s okay to get off the train.
I thought it was rather obvious I was talking about/to @Wizz, not you. You know. The one giving medical-sounding advice.
He/Him. Opinions and views are solely my own unless specifically stated otherwise.
BE AN ADULT -
@Pax Even if WebMD will always tell you it’s cancer. I mean, it’s probably not, but it’s usually that or an aneurysm
-
Because you also started rattling off about studies with me, my dude, so it was a little ambiguous. But okay, duly noted!
-
@shit-piss-love said in RL Peeves:
How is “this works for me” medical advice? Y’all on the wrong side of this it’s okay to get off the train.
I thought it was rather obvious I was talking about/to @Wizz, not you. You know. The one giving medical-sounding advice.
Yup. I admit my eyes glaze over when people start popping off with the ASCKSHUALLY in response to a lived experience. I popped off in response and hit you with a stray my bad homie.
-
Because you also started rattling off about studies with me, my dude, so it was a little ambiguous. But okay, duly noted!
I cited a study and briefly explained it, yes. I then briefly outlined that it wasn’t something to be relied upon given the small sample sizes involved and the brief timespan.
I didn’t use uncited claims to try and disprove someone’s lived experience, and then try to claim ‘objectivity.’
ETA: For clarity, when I say not to rely upon it I mean that it cannot form the foundation of your thesis or argument, but it can be used in conjunction with other studies as they come. And always with the proviso that the knowledge we do have is limited in both demographic scope and timespan.
-
Got some more of them studies? My dad’s traumatic brain injury used to hit him with 50-100 icepick-in-the-skull headaches a day until he started taking a small amount of marijuana and now he gets them a few times a week. I wanna let him know it’s all in his head so he can go back to being suicical.
-
I have been a dick lately and it’s just as exhausting for me, so I am just going to say sorry for crossing this line and souring everyone’s morning. I don’t know what my problem is, I am just under loads of stress and anxiety and lots of flashback stuff has been coming up, and I actually-objectively really shouldn’t be coming here to spout off in that state of mind.
Do whatever is good for you, and I will just try to not put my foot in my mouth for a while.
-
@shit-piss-love Well, strictly speaking most pain management is in the head. Or at least in the nervous system.
But in terms of pain management there have been more studies around marijuana and other cannabinoids. A recent study (Maharajan et al., 2019) has suggested that it can be useful as a treatment for certain kinds of pain (I’m not a pain expert, so I’m not entirely clear on what all the different kinds of pain mean) but not for others, especially certain kinds of chronic pain.
It also has warnings about overuse leading to cognitive problems and such.
If you’re actually interested I can send you the pdf of the study.
Maharajan, M. K., Yong, Y. J., Yip, H. Y., Woon, S. S., Yeap, K. M., Yap, K. Y., Yip, S. C., & Yap, K. X. (2019). Medical cannabis for chronic pain: Can it make a difference in pain management? Journal of Anesthesia, 34(1), 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-019-02680-y
-
As a cororolry to all of this, I suppose, there’s a few things one should be aware of when reading scientific literature.
The first is that it’s obviously written for a professional audience, and may contain nuance or supposed expectation that we, as non-experts, just don’t parse.
But secondly, and most importantly (especially to my area of psych research, actually) not every study gets published. If the study doesn’t “prove” something, or otherwise bring about new information it’s generally not worth publishing - in the opinion of journal editors. So any study that says there’s no link between X and Y is less likely to be published than one that says there is a link, even if that link is tenuous.
Third is obviously bias. When looking at published work, it’s best practice (at least as a student) to also look into who wrote the article. Not as a way to appeal to authority, but to inspect their funding source, their area of expertise. Not to go all conspiracy theorist on you, but I doubt Big Pharma would want “marijunana good, actually” papers being published when they have scores of researchers in need of funding and a little coaxing…
-
today my RL peeve is people who don’t pick up after their dog. I scoop turds like a dedicated champion but people still mutter at me when I walk past with my little poopy angels because SOMEONE ELSE didn’t clean up after their dog, usually because “it’s just a little one”.
-
Unfortunately the evidence we do have says one thing, and many reported anecdotes say another. But the evidence we have is scanty and of small scale.
One of the shittier impacts of prohibition, particularly the way cannabis has been classified in the US, is how it salted the earth for legitimate medical studies for decades. I feel like we’re playing catch-up now but there’s still a long way to go and in the meantime it’s very frustrating to sort through anecdotes, junk science, and stuff that was probably done with an agenda other than actual research.
-
- People react differently.
- There are always outliers.
- Study results can be skewed to agree with the bias of the investigator.
- Placebo effect is a thing.
Conclusion: Who knows at this point. Have a drink, take a toke, watch some Netflix, relax.
